Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knunder (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 05:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Knunder
This article was speedily deleted several times (see Special:Undelete/Knunder, relevant parts available to all editors), but undeleted as not-a-speedy by VfU. So it comes here instead for a full investigation. No comment from me. (PS: I have arbitrarily reverted to what I think is a version the authors would want you to see: the later versions are recreations of protestations.) -Splash talk 02:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Anyway, this bet I'm having is going pretty well, and I like to thank people for going on the site and (possibly) using the word occasionally. Perhaps one day, this article will exist, and it will tell the story about how I managed to force a word into the language. It'll be quite a story to tell in years to come. I'm going to ask politely if you would like to keep this "nonsense neologism" on Wikipedia. I know it won't help me in any way, shape or form, but it'll be proof that the word is being recognised. Proof that it is being used. I shall leave now, and await what the future of knunder looks like on this wiki. Thank you. -- Friz
 * Delete the random neologism. Pilatus 02:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-verifiable, since the page linked in the article indicates someone made up the word as part of a bet to get it in the dictionary. And WP:NOT/ a dictionary or usage guide --Mysidia (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism, not a disctionary, no notable phenom. associated with it, basicly non notable. - brenneman (t) (c)  02:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a dictionary article about a protologism. (It does not satisfy Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion because it is not attested independently of its source, by the way.)  Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WINAD) and is not a promotional vehicle (WP:NOT) for publicizing newly invented words (WP:NOR) so that as a consequence they enter widespread use, they get into dictionaries, and one can win a bet with one's teacher.  In any case:  Any encyclopaedia article content about the concept that this protologism is purported to describe would have a natural home in table (furniture); and any encyclopaedia article content about the process of getting words into the Oxford English Dictionary belongs in Oxford English Dictionary.  Delete.  Uncle G 03:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this protologism, and protect the space if necessary to prevent re-creation. --Angr/undefined 05:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete it good! Dicdef and I can't see it changing. —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 05:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's not encyclopedic, but do list it on the bad jokes page, the "safety in knunders" pun deserves to live on. - Stillnotelf 06:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect from re-creation Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 08:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I already did and it got unprotected. -- RHaworth 09:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That was me. I unprotected it because VfU mandated it be undeleted, so I didn't have much choice. The irksome IP in question has removed the AfD tag, predictably, and received a warning from me, with no mincing of words. -Splash talk 12:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to neologism and make a brief note about it there as an intentional attempt to force a neologism into the world. The fact that this boy and/or his teacher have managed to get the Beeb to notice is a bit notable. It has also been noted by such august organs as the Lincolnshire Echo, the Grantham Journal and the Sleaford Standard. It does not actually matter if Wikipedia records it, that is not what puts a word into the language. This one will surely frizzle out (pun on the creator's name) anyway. -- RHaworth 09:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. android  79  12:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm Stephen Frizzle, the creator of the word. I googled knunder earlier to see how it was doing, and 'lo and behold, it's been added on Wikipedia! I was also a bit shocked to see I had "new messages" telling me I'd be blocked from Wikipedia if I was to edit any more pages. What's that all about?! It mentioned something about sharing the same IP address as another user. The only suggestion I can say is the fact I'm using a college computer. It sickens me to think that somebody from the college is deliberately associating the word with acts of anarchy such as this.
 * Delete. All the uses of the word "knunder" in print seem to be about the creation of the word "knunder" as a neologism; I don't see evidence that it is being used on its own as a regular word. --Metropolitan90 19:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm putting a report together with all the emails I'm getting from people using the word across the country. From Primary Schools in Scotland to a workhouse in Australia. At my least count, over 5,000 people were using knunder (and that's just a guess from the facts I've collected through emails). -- Friz
 * Hello, Pro-Knunderers and Anti-Knunderers! Wordsmith Friz here; just a short note to say that primary school teachers all over Britain are telling their young pupils to "put their chairs in the knunder". I'm warping a generation of 4-year-olds! Also, the word is going to be used- in context- by a few D C Thompson publications (such as The Weekly News and The Beano). At my lastest count, there are now 30 ways to use the word knunder, either as a noun, verb, preposition or adverb, and there are over 6,000 people who know of the word, or are using the word. Watch this space! -- Friz
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.